Literature DB >> 34328040

The Effect of the Familiarity of a Survey Sender on Response Outcomes in a Large-Scale Survey of Emergency Medical Services Agencies.

Morgan M Millar1, Hilary A Hewes2, Andrea L Genovesi2, Michael Ely2, Braden Green2, Patricia Schmuhl2, Kjelsey Polzin3, Carolina Roberts Santana4, Marc Minkler5, Lenora M Olson2.   

Abstract

Survey response is higher when the request comes from a familiar entity compared to an unknown sender. Little is known about how sender influences response to surveys of organizations. We assessed whether familiarity of the sender influences response outcomes in a survey of emergency medical services agencies. Emergency medical services agencies in one U.S. state were randomly assigned to receive survey emails from either a familiar or unfamiliar sender. Both deployment approaches were subsequently used nationwide, with each state selecting one of the two contact methods. Experimental results showed that requests from the familiar sender achieved higher survey response (54.3%) compared to requests from the unfamiliar sender (36.9%; OR: 2.03; 95% CI: 1.23, 3.33). Similar results were observed in the subsequent nationwide survey; in states where the familiar sender deployed the survey, 62.0% of agencies responded, compared to 51.0% when the survey was sent by the unfamiliar sender (OR: 1.57; 95% CI: 1.47, 1.67). The response difference resulted in nearly 60 additional hours of staff time needed to perform telephone follow-up to nonrespondents. When surveying healthcare organizations, surveyors should recognize that it is more challenging to obtain responses without a pre-established relationship with the organizations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  emergency medical services; establishment surveys; survey breakoffs; survey response rate; survey sponsorship; web surveys

Mesh:

Year:  2021        PMID: 34328040      PMCID: PMC8725665          DOI: 10.1177/01632787211030635

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eval Health Prof        ISSN: 0163-2787            Impact factor:   2.329


  18 in total

Review 1.  Surveying physicians: do components of the "Total Design Approach" to optimizing survey response rates apply to physicians?

Authors:  Terry S Field; Cynthia A Cadoret; Martin L Brown; Marvella Ford; Sarah M Greene; Deanna Hill; Mark C Hornbrook; Richard T Meenan; Mary Jo White; Jane M Zapka
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2002-07       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Print format and sender recognition were related to survey completion rate.

Authors:  Jamie C Brehaut; Ian D Graham; Laura Visentin; Ian G Stiell
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2006-05-02       Impact factor: 6.437

3.  Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys.

Authors:  Timothy P Johnson; Joseph S Wislar
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-05-02       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Estimating the effect of nonresponse bias in a survey of hospital organizations.

Authors:  Emily F Lewis; Maryann Hardy; Beverly Snaith
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 2.651

5.  Rethinking Response Rates: New Evidence of Little Relationship Between Survey Response Rates and Nonresponse Bias.

Authors:  Richard Hendra; Aaron Hill
Journal:  Eval Rev       Date:  2018-12-23

6.  The Association Between Hospital Characteristics and Nonresponse in Organization Survey: An Analysis of the National Healthcare Establishment and Workforce Survey in Malaysia.

Authors:  Chee Yoong Foo; Daniel D Reidpath; Sheamini Sivasampu
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 2.651

7.  Nonresponse bias in a survey of patient perceptions of hospital care.

Authors:  Thomas V Perneger; Eric Chamot; Patrick A Bovier
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Assessing Infrastructure to Care for Pediatric Patients in the Prehospital Setting.

Authors:  Michael Ely; Elizabeth A Edgerton; Russell Telford; Kent Page; Craig Hemingway; Donald Vernon; Lenora M Olson
Journal:  Pediatr Emerg Care       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 1.454

9.  Effects of pre-notification, invitation length, questionnaire length and reminder on participation rate: a quasi-randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Marie Koitsalu; Martin Eklund; Jan Adolfsson; Henrik Grönberg; Yvonne Brandberg
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2018-01-05       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 10.  Methods to increase response to postal and electronic questionnaires.

Authors:  Philip James Edwards; Ian Roberts; Mike J Clarke; Carolyn Diguiseppi; Reinhard Wentz; Irene Kwan; Rachel Cooper; Lambert M Felix; Sarah Pratap
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2009-07-08
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.